And that silence is unfortunate because it could help maintain the integrity of Iowa’s judicial selection process, critics contend.

“I think it would be wise for the govern to basically say ‘Let’s clearly understand the parameters of what the judicial nominating commission is supposed to be seeking,’” said Jeff Angelo, a former senator who is now chairman of the group Republicans for Freedom, which advocates for individual liberty in marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Angelo continued: “It doesn’t surprise me he declined comment because he’s not a micro manager but at the same time I would guess he hopes this is an isolated incident that sort of resolves itself.”

The Register asked Branstad Tuesday to respond to questions about the issue. Today Tim Albrecht, a spokesman for the governor, said the governor is declining to speak about the issue.

The questions were made last week to two of 22 candidates seeking to become a judge on the Iowa Court of Appeals.

The question about covenant vows was made from nominating commissioner Scott Bailey, a vice president of the Network of Iowa Christian Home Educators from Otley, to Jeanie Vaudt, an assistant Iowa attorney general.

The question about church involvement came from nominating commissioner Elizabeth Doll of Council Bluffs, who asked applicant Jennifer Miller to “comment on her methodology of choosing a place of worship.”

Critics contend those types of questions are inappropriate and pollute the separation of church and state.

The questions violate the commission’s own guidelines and came as some legal observers worry Branstad, a Republican, has packed the panel with conservative activists.

The handbook for commissioners specifically warns that questions about marital status, a spouse’s employment and religion are inappropriate. One example of an inappropriate question from the book is: “What does your spouse think about your being a judge?”

“I think they were most inappropriate,” former Iowa Lt. Gov. Joy Corning, a Republican who served alongside Branstad in the 1990s, said Wednesday. “Those questions have nothing to do with their qualification on the Court of Appeals.”

Bailey has defended his question, saying the word “covenant” was in reference to a more broad question about guiding principles in all areas of life and whether her husband supported her seeking the position. The questioned followed Vaudt volunteering information to the nominating committee about her long-distance relationship with her husband David Vaudt, a former Iowa state auditor.

Doll told the Register Tuesday that she asked Miller to comment on her methodology of choosing a place of worship because Miller’s resume and background material included information about how she previously chose a church in Harlem where she felt she could be more engaged in her community.

Doll said she wanted to highlight Miller’s civic commitment rather than her religious affiliation.

And Miller, on Wednesday, told The Register that she wasn’t in the least bit offended by the question.

“I have no concerns about that question,” Miller said. “I didn’t think it was an inappropriate question at all.”

Connie Ryan Terrell, the chairwoman of Justice Not Politics, also called the questions inappropriate.

Ryan Terrell’s group advocated for retention of Iowa Supreme Court Justices following their 2009 unanimous ruling that allowed same-sex couples in Iowa to marry.

“I do think he should make a statement about what is appropriate and what’s inappropriate,” Ryan Terrell said. “Beyond that, I think the Judicial Branch and the nominating commission itself needs to make a statement.”

The commission has recommended Vaudt, 59, of West Des Moines as one of three finalists to replace retiring Chief Judge Larry Eisenhauer.

The commission also selected Sharon Greer, 57, an attorney in Marshalltown; and Christopher McDonald, 38, a Polk County judge.

Branstad has a month to make the selection.

The possible consequences of nominating members asking inappropriate questions to judicial candidates are unknown. Both Albrecht, a spokesman for the governor, and Steve Davis, a spokesman for the courts, didn’t immediately know the answer.

]]>http://iowarepublicansforfreedom.com/2013/09/03/gov-branstad-declines-comment-on-inappropriate-judicial-questions/feed/0iowarepubsFormer Iowa GOP chair’s firm hired by ACLU for gay marriage effort in Illinoishttp://iowarepublicansforfreedom.com/2013/08/28/former-iowa-gop-chairs-firm-hired-by-aclu-for-gay-marriage-effort-in-illinois/
http://iowarepublicansforfreedom.com/2013/08/28/former-iowa-gop-chairs-firm-hired-by-aclu-for-gay-marriage-effort-in-illinois/#commentsWed, 28 Aug 2013 17:49:09 +0000http://iowarepublicansforfreedom.com/?p=852]]>The American Civil Liberties Union has hired a consulting firm started by the Iowa Republican Party’s former chairman to help with efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Former Iowa GOP chairman Matt Strawn started a government affairs firm earlier this year with Pat Brady. Brady left his post as GOP chairman in Illinois to start the firm.

The company, Next Generation Public Affairs, Inc., has been retained by the ACLU’s Illinois chapter to provide strategic advice on marriage equality, part of which includes a lobbying effort in Illinois headed up by Brady. Strawn is not a registered lobbyist in any state.

So far, two Illinois Republicans say they’re in favor.

Same-sex marriage legislation is expected in the fall. Efforts earlier this year stalled when the bill’s sponsor said the legislation didn’t have the needed support.

]]>http://iowarepublicansforfreedom.com/2013/08/28/former-iowa-gop-chairs-firm-hired-by-aclu-for-gay-marriage-effort-in-illinois/feed/0iowarepubsCounty GOP’s support of gay marriage draws firehttp://iowarepublicansforfreedom.com/2013/07/30/county-gops-support-of-gay-marriage-draws-fire/
http://iowarepublicansforfreedom.com/2013/07/30/county-gops-support-of-gay-marriage-draws-fire/#commentsTue, 30 Jul 2013 19:00:18 +0000http://iowarepublicansforfreedom.com/?p=846]]>California Republicans are abuzz following the Marin County Republican Central Committee’s vote Thursday to support same-sex marriage, becoming the nation’s first Republican county central committee to do so.

“We recognized that we were not providing Marin voters with a viable choice at the polls, and we looked at ways to begin correcting that perception,” Kevin Krick of Fairfax, the committee’s chairman, told my Marin Independent Journal colleague Richard Halstead.

But Harmeet Dhillon – chairwoman of the San Francisco Republican Party and vice chair of the state GOP – on Monday said the feedback she’s hearing from Republicans all around California is “pretty overwhelmingly in opposition” to the Marin GOP’s vote. She called the vote “ill-advised politically and premature at best,” and said she doesn’t know of any other county that’s considering following suit.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate to have platform positions at the local level that contradict what the party positions are at the state and national level,” she said. “I don’t believe in meaningless gestures, and we don’t engage in them at the San Francisco Republican Party.”

Activists have not been agitating for the San Francisco GOP to take a position on the issue, she said, “and I don’t expect that to change because they’re not single-issue voters and it’s not the most important issue for them.” Dhillon said gay Republicans like other Republicans are more focused on economic issues, and though she considers Krick a friend, she finds this decision surprising: “I don’t think it was properly aired, vetted, thought out.”

“There’s really no groundswell for taking what I think is a premature position on the issue,” she said. “It’s not decided by any stretch of the imagination in the courts, by the Legislature or by the people.”

Nor does she believe it’ll attract new voters to the party, Dhillon said: People for whom same-sex marriage is a prime issue usually disagree with the GOP on many other issues as well, so all this does is vex the party’s conservative base.

Stuart Gaffney of San Francisco, spokesman for Marriage Equality USA, said though this is a first for the Republican Party, “it confirms what we already know: Support for marriage equality is increasing on a daily basis across all spectrums of our society.”

“It wasn’t that long ago where marriage equality might’ve been thought of as a partisan issue, but we see more and more politicians and leaders working across the aisle,” he said, noting actions like those of U.S. Sen. Rob Portman – who last year became the first GOP senator to support same-sex marriage – and the Marin GOP’s “are a result of seeing their LGBT constituents as human beings worthy of full dignity in all aspects of their lives.”

“Any politician and any political party needs to be looking at how they can put together a majority, because they need to win elections,” Gaffney said, citing a new Gallup Poll that shows 52 percent of Americans would vote in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.

“The numbers are only getting stronger and stronger… so any party that hopes to remain relevant needs to get on board or get out of the way. It’s a question for politicians and political parties now whether they want to be on the right side of history or not.”

An interview with the conservative marriage equality activist Ken Mehlman on DOMA, the conservative movement, and what’s lies ahead.

Out: Did you anticipate yesterday’s results? Or were you caught by surprise?

Ken Mehlman: I wasn’t surprised by the results, based on the conversations I’d had with Ted Olsen and David Boies fromAFER, which is a board I serve on, and also I’d gotten to know Robbie [Roberta] Kaplan [the lawyer for Edie Windsor]. Although no one can predict the court, it was possible to imagine this result based on the hearings earlier this year. If you readJustice Kennedy’s opinion, and I take him at his word, he looked at that law [DOMA], read the legislative history of the law, and concluded that the law should be overturned.

Are we likely to see a Republican backlash?

I don’t think so. If you look at the history of marriage from the beginning, what you see is that after states pass civil marriage, support invariably grows across party lines. Look at Massachusetts and New Hampshire, both states where marriage equality laws were passed with fewer Republicans, but ultimately Republicans and Democrats came around to embrace gay marriage. As people see what happens when people are treated equally under the law, when there is the opportunity for civil marriage, they see their family values being enhanced, they see their community values getting stronger. When I went up to New Hampshire last year during an attempt to roll back marriage equality, I met with a whole lot of Republican state legislators, and one of the questions I asked, particularly of those who were conceptually skeptical of the issue, was if they could name anyone in the community whose life was worse because of marriage equality. And then I asked if they could name anyone whose lives were better. They recognized that point.

Is the battle won?

No, there’s a lot of work to do—although 30 percent of America is going to live in a place where loving couples, regardless of sexual orientation, have the right to marriage, there are 37 states where that right still does not exist, and 29 states where people can be fired because of their sexual orientation, so that’s where a lot of the work ahead lies.

What role will you play in that?

What I will do, and keep doing, is to listen to the experts and professionals, from people like Chad Griffin [at HRC] to Evan Wolfson [at Freedom to Marry] and Matt Coles [at ACLU], and others. I do think when you look at these places where there are no legal protections, making the case from a conservative values perspective is an imperative, not an option, so I hope to be helpful from that perspective. As we look to other states with ballot initiatives I hope there’s an opportunity to utilize technology like micro-targeting and big data to be more effective in targeting the people we still need to persuade on this.

One thing I was very proud of was helong to get 130 Republicans and conservatives to sign an Amicus brief saying that all Americans have a right to marry—a number of those people have since then gone to work to help this fight. Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense under George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed for theHouston Chronicle. Others went on television.

What role do you think the media has played in this?

An important role, for sure, but the single most important role is the role of every one of your readers and the role that Harvey Milk outlined—the role everyone has in simply coming out and telling their story to their family and their friends and their colleagues. There are so many examples, every day. What was so compelling about these cases was Edie’s story and Edie’s example.

We all have the power to tell stories, and the media can magnify that. It’s also important for kids who are growing up—who want to grow up in a nation where they have equal rights under the law. I do think we need to recognize that this is a pluralistic society, and what we are discussing is civil marriage, and that while a marriage license ought to be available to everyone regardless of sexual orientation, we also respect the fact that different faiths come to different conclusions—and we’re not talking about taking a sacrament here.

You mentioned that in 29 states you can still be fired from your work based on sexual orientation. That’s a pretty powerful disincentive for coming out, let alone getting married.

73% of Republican voters believe someone should not be able to fired based on sexual orientation, so if a majority of Americans who believe there ought to be civil marriage—it’s about 55% now—that number is a super majority on workplace discrimination. I think there is a good conservative argument, a good progressive argument that’s consistent with the most basic American value, which is merit: People ought to be judged on the job that they do. Building out the kind of coalition that we saw around marriage, where business leaders made the case, as well as conservatives and liberals and moderates and libertarians, all can make the case of why people ought to be judged at work on the job that they do and not fired on the basis of sexual orientation.

What’s next?

There’s obviously a lot of clean-up that will happen now that DOMA has been repealed, from tax equity issues to immigration, and those are things that need to be reviewed. There’s been a lot of progress in the past on safe schools and making sure that bullying is addressed. Governor Christie in New Jersey, and in Maine, Governor LePage, have signed very robust laws making sure that every child is safe in school. Those can be a model for other states.

Speaking of Christie, were you disappointed in his reaction to Justice Kennedy’s opinion, calling it “incredibly insulting” to the 340-plus members of Congress and President Bill Clinton who signed it into law?

I disagreed with him. I thought it was the right decision and I think we need to try now, going forward, to look at places where we don’t have access to marriage and work on that. Everyone comes from a different ideological perspective, and we should use our way of thinking and our particular relationships to make the case for equality.

One of several rounds of applause at a One Iowa rally Wednesday night came after the Des Moines Gay Men’s Chorus led the crowd, holding hands in an expansive circle on the West Terrace of the Capitol Building, in a stirring round of “We Shall of Overcome.”

A few hundred people came out to show support for the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling Wednesday that overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and a second ruling that could restore gay marriage in California. Many people in the crowd wore red shirts that said “The Right to Love,” and waved rainbow flags.

“We have so much to celebrate today,” said One Iowa Executive Director Donna Red Wing in a speech that lauded Iowa’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community’s victories. She also outlined its task for the future, gaining rights for the elder, transgender and HIV positive segments of the community.

Red Wing also praised the activists who came before her. “Let us raise our voices to our friends who never got to see this day,” she said. “We will remember them.”

Among the speakers were state Senator Matt McCoy, ACLU of Iowa Executive Director Ben Stone, and Sue Huber, community organizer for Parents and Friends of Gays and Lesbians.

Former Senator Jeff Angelo, founder of Iowa Republicans for Freedom, got a few laughs from the crowd when he waved, and said, “This is the segment of the rally I lovingly call, ‘Everybody look at the Republican!’”

In actuality, Angelo said, more Republicans are joining the gay rights movement every day. “The tide is shifting,” he said.

Representing the religious community, Rabbi Steven Edelman-Blank of Tifereth Israel Synagogue in Des Moines led the crowd in the shehechiyanu, a celebratory Hebrew prayer. The crowd responded with “Amen.” Rev. Mark Stringer, pastor of the First Unitarian Church of Des Moines said there is more work to be done. “Let’s keep at it, because I believe a god of justice, equality and love wouldn’t want it any other way.”

Gina DelCorazon, 31, was among the crowd, wearing a t-shirt that read “Legalize Gay.” She and her wife, Ana, 36, moved to Des Moines from California to start a family, and married here one year ago.

When DelCorazon, an Ames native, heard the news this morning, “I cried right away,” she said. “It’s so fantastic to feel more secure now.”

Ginger Eisenrod is Republican through and through and has been for decades. She runs a residential and commercial real estate business in Boca Raton with her husband, just finished a term as president of a political club in Coral Springs, and describes herself as strongly pro-life on abortion.

Eisenrod is also a supporter of same-sex marriage.

“I don’t see how you can be a Republican and think that the government should interfere in your decision to marry,” she said. “Most of the people that I know do not want the government in their lives, much less in their bedroom.”

Even though the Republican Party platform states that “the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard,” a growing number of Republicans have become increasingly comfortable with and even embrace the notion of marriage between two men or two women.

Eisenrod, 67, said 10 years ago she was “definitely against it.” Five years ago, she supported civil unions. In April 2011, she threw a wedding reception for two gay men. “I have definitely evolved.”

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to release rulings, likely by the end of this week, in two pivotal cases dealing with same-sex marriage, Eisenrod illustrates the transformation taking place in South Florida and across the nation.

A Quinnipiac University poll in December found 66 percent of Florida Republicans oppose same-sex marriage. But the opposition was down 10 percentage points from seven months earlier. Same-sex marriage has much more support among Democrats, 58 percent, and independents, 47 percent.

“There’s obviously still opposition among some segments of the Republican Party, but the numbers are changing,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac’s Polling Institute.

Spinks Edwards, a 24-year-old event manager from Weston who helped with Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, said that’s especially true among young Republicans.

“I would say the overwhelming majority of young Republicans support or don’t fear gay marriage, don’t fear same-sex equality,” he said. “I don’t like government telling you what to do.”

Dan Daley, 23, of Coral Springs, agreed.

“I believe in less government, and that means in all aspects, and that includes marriage,” he said. “What you’ll find particularly with people in my age range and generation is a similar feeling. You can’t tell someone that it’s illegal to love someone or not.”

Ryan Anderson, 35, elected in August 2012 to serve as the state party committeeman from Broward County, favors same-sex marriage.

Anderson, who manages business development for a security company, doesn’t think it’s possible to advocate limits on government regulation in the economy then turn around and support regulations on peoples’ private lives.

Edwards is among the conservative supporters of same-sex marriage who argue it’s a conservative institution, packed with responsibilities such as a life-long commitment, which benefits its participants and society as a whole.

“When two lives join and become one, they’re trying to better the community. That inherently is a conservative argument,” he said. “There is definitely a strong family values argument for [same-sex marriage].”

“We have [two-thirds] of people supporting traditional values and things making American’s families stronger. I think there are a lot of Republicans who continue to feel that way, and are still in key leadership positions. I’m hoping and praying that will continue,” she said.

Brooks, 68, is a Republican committeewoman and head of the Palm Beach County Faith and Freedom Coalition, formerly the Christian Coalition. “The people who are religious, who are Christian in the Republican Party, I think most of them sort of resent this idea that the world seems to be foisting upon us,” she said.

Bob Wolfe, 54, said Brooks’ view is common among older Republicans. “In our party, my age and above are probably just rock solid traditional marriage, just sort of the southern, white, conservative position.”

Wolfe, founding president of the Lauderdale Beach Republican Club, said other parts of the state are more conservative than South Florida, where Republicans are more likely to support same-sex marriage. But there’s an undercurrent of change across the country:

• On Wednesday, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska became the third Republican in the U.S. Senate to support same-sex marriage.

• Before the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the same-sex marriage cases in March, almost 150 prominent Republicans — including U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Miami —filed a friend of the court brief in support of same-sex marriage.

]]>http://iowarepublicansforfreedom.com/2013/06/24/as-society-changes-more-republicans-come-out-in-support-of-gay-marriage/feed/0iowarepubsStrategist Out of Closet and Into Fray, This Time for Gay Marriagehttp://iowarepublicansforfreedom.com/2013/06/20/strategist-out-of-closet-and-into-fray-this-time-for-gay-marriage/
http://iowarepublicansforfreedom.com/2013/06/20/strategist-out-of-closet-and-into-fray-this-time-for-gay-marriage/#commentsThu, 20 Jun 2013 16:56:52 +0000http://iowarepublicansforfreedom.com/?p=835]]>New York Times:

As the Supreme Court considers overturning California’s ban onsame-sex marriage, gay people await a ruling that could change their lives. But the case has already transformed one gay man: Ken Mehlman, the once-closeted Republican operative who orchestrated President George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election on a platform that included opposition to same-sex marriage.

Now Mr. Mehlman, a private equity executive in Manhattan, is waging what could be his final campaign: to convince fellow Republicans that gay marriage is consistent with conservative values and good for their party. His about-face, sparked in part by the lawyer who filed the California lawsuit, has sent him on a personal journey to erase what one new friend in the gay rights movement calls his “incredibly destructive” Bush legacy.

He remains controversial, both applauded and vilified. On the left, he is either an unlikely hero or a hypocritical coward. On the right, some Republicans embrace him; others deem him a traitor.

Coming out “has been a little bit like the Tom Sawyer funeral, where you show up at your own funeral and you hear what people really think,” Mr. Mehlman said in a recent interview in his office at Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, on the 42nd floor of a Midtown skyscraper. “A big part of one’s brain that used to worry about this issue has now been freed to worry about things that are much more productive.”

Mr. Mehlman, 46, remains the hyper-intense, guarded strategist he was in his Bush days, with the same habit of looking past people instead of meeting their eyes. He shuns most interviews and still deflects personal questions, as he did back when rumors about his sexuality swirled.

“I have a happy life today, and I had a happy life before,” he said. Freed of the burden of secrecy, he lives in the gay-friendly Chelsea neighborhood and summers in the Hamptons. Another friend called him “more and more comfortable in his skin.” He dates, but said he was not ready to marry.

He will not talk about any guilt he might feel for serving as the 2004 campaign manager, when Mr. Bush, courting Christian evangelicals, called for a federal ban on same-sex marriage and conservatives marched to the polls. Mr. Mehlman was rewarded with the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, a job he held until 2006.

Some who once taunted him now praise him, saying coming out is difficult and anyone can change. “If you’re going to have an epiphany, do it like Mehlman,” said John Aravosis, a gay blogger.

Others are still furious. “I doubt Ken Mehlman will ever be anything more than a bitter footnote in the history of our movement,” said another blogger, Joe Jervis.

And in Ohio, where Mr. Bush’s re-election coincided with voter approval of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, Mr. Mehlman is persona non grata, said Eric Resnick, a gay journalist who in 2005 confronted the party chairman about his sexuality at a dinner. (Mr. Mehlman ducked the question.)

“Ken Mehlman did a lot of damage in Ohio,” Mr. Resnick said. “He has not come back to Ohio and said, ‘I’m sorry for what I did to you.’ ”

Despite or perhaps because of this past, Mr. Mehlman has carved a rare niche as a go-to Republican in the overwhelmingly Democratic gay advocacy world.

Deploying his vast Rolodex but staying mostly behind the scenes, he has worked with the White House (President Obama was his classmate at Harvard Law School) to repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy; lobbied lawmakers to legalize same-sex marriage in states like New York, Minnesota and New Hampshire; served as an informal adviser to Republicans including Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, who backed marriage rights after learning his son is gay; and recruited Republican donors, helping to raise $4.5 million for gay causes, including an antibullying campaign.

He also founded a small nonprofit, Project Right Side, to develop polling data to appeal to conservatives. He sits on the board of the group that brought the case challengingProposition 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban, and gathered the signatures of more than 100 Republicans on a legal brief supporting the suit. When advocates in Maine, where voters rejected same-sex marriage in 2009, tried again last year, Mr. Mehlman helped retool their advertising. They won.

“He brought a totally fresh perspective that nobody else had, and because he was so prominent, people had to take note,” said Matt McTighe, who managed the Maine effort.

In articulating a conservative case for gay marriage rights, Mr. Mehlman invokes the term “civil marriage” as a reminder, he said, that he is talking about “marriage under the law, as opposed to marriage as a religious sacrament.” In speeches, he likes to say Republicans should back same-sex marriage “because we are conservative, not in spite of being conservatives.” He uses Republican-friendly words like “freedom” and “‘liberty” as opposed to “equality” — language that Mr. McTighe said resonated with Republicans and conservative Democrats in Maine.

But nationally, Mr. Mehlman has an uphill battle. Polls show roughly two-thirds of Republicans oppose same-sex marriage, although support among those under 30 is higher. So reaction to him in his party is mixed.

Friends from the Bush days, like Tim Goeglein, an evangelical Christian who works for the advocacy group Focus on the Family, do not broach the topic. “We know where each person stands, so we have not had a fulsome discussion,” Mr. Goeglein said.

In the capital, where Mr. Mehlman remains a respected figure, many conservatives simply say they disagree with him. Beyond the insular inside-the-Beltway crowd, some Republicans want to know why a man who worked to unite Republicans is raising an issue that divides them. That was the case in Iowa, where same-sex marriage is legal but opposed by many social conservatives on religious grounds, when Mr. Mehlman went there last year.

“People were asking, ‘Why are you coming here to stir the pot?’ ” said Craig Robinson, editor of The Iowa Republican, a political Web site. “It was kind of a head-scratcher.”

Mr. Mehlman credited Theodore B. Olson, a solicitor general under Mr. Bush, with providing a spark that set him on his current path. In 2009, Mr. Mehlman, out of politics but still in the closet, invited Mr. Olson — who filed the California suit — to lunch.

Mr. Mehlman said he had been thinking for some time that “a strong argument could be made from both the freedom and the family values perspective.” Mr. Olson told him that courts had deemed marriage a “fundamental right.” The next year, Mr. Mehlman told Mr. Olson that he is gay and wanted to help.

Critics have called what followed “Ken Mehlman’s apology tour,” a coming-out strategy unveiled in August 2010 with the precision of a political campaign. Mr. Mehlman — who once flatly denied being gay — granted a lone interview to Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic, in which he said he regretted not being “where I am today 20 years ago.” He pledged to become an advocate and apologized to gay audiences.

Mr. Mehlman’s friends say the apology tour is now over. Since many legal analysts expect the Supreme Court to leave same-sex marriage to the states, he is focused on efforts like Project Right Side, his nonprofit polling organization, which provided data last year to every Republican presidential campaign.

How much difference he is making is difficult to determine, though some advocates, like Chad Griffin of the Human Rights Campaign, see small signs. They note that Karl Rove, the Republican strategist who is close to Mr. Mehlman, said he could imagine a pro-gay-marriage Republican running for president in 2016. Senator John Cornyn, the Texas Republican, supported an openly gay candidate for a federal judgeship.

“This is not just any Republican — this is one of the single greatest successful strategists for Republicans,” Mr. Griffin said of Mr. Mehlman. “And now he’s on our side.”

Senator Lisa Murkowski, the Alaska Republican who has emerged as one of her party’s more moderate members in the Senate, said Wednesday that she supports same-sex marriage.

She becomes only the third Republican in the Senate to do so.

In a lengthy op-ed posted on her Web site, Ms. Murkowski said that what helped change her mind on the issue was getting to know a lesbian couple from Alaska. They were a family in every sense but one, Ms. Murkowski wrote. They adopted four children. They stayed together after enduring a separation because one of them served abroad in the Alaska National Guard.

“Yet despite signing up and volunteering to give themselves fully to these four adorable children, our government does not meet this family halfway and allow them to be legally recognized as spouses,” Ms. Murkowski wrote. “This first-class Alaskan family still lives a second-class existence.”

With the Supreme Court set to decide a pair of same-sex marriage cases as early as next week, Ms. Murkowski said, she felt compelled to speak up. She follows two fellow Republicans, Senators Mark Kirk of Illinois and Rob Portman of Ohio, in supporting same-sex marriage. Mr. Portman announced his support in March after his son revealed to him that he is gay.

As Mr. Portman did, Ms. Murkowski articulated a conservative case for same-sex marriage, noting that the government should stay out of the private lives of loving couples while promoting the societal benefits of couples wedded by law.

“I recently read an interview where Ronald Reagan’s daughter said that she believes he would have supported same-sex marriage, that he would think ‘What difference does it make to anybody else’s life?’ ” she wrote. “Like Reagan, Alaskans believe that government works best when it gets out of the way.”

Alaska’s Democratic senator, Mark Begich, said in March that he supports same-sex marriage. Mr. Begich is up for re-election next year.

]]>http://iowarepublicansforfreedom.com/2013/06/19/alaskas-murkowski-becomes-third-g-o-p-senator-to-support-gay-marriage/feed/0iowarepubsBass To GOP: Don’t Be On ‘Wrong Side Of History’ With Same-Sex Marriagehttp://iowarepublicansforfreedom.com/2013/06/03/bass-to-gop-dont-be-on-wrong-side-of-history-with-same-sex-marriage/
http://iowarepublicansforfreedom.com/2013/06/03/bass-to-gop-dont-be-on-wrong-side-of-history-with-same-sex-marriage/#commentsMon, 03 Jun 2013 19:02:55 +0000http://iowarepublicansforfreedom.com/?p=830]]>from New Hampshire Public Radio (NHPR).

As a congressman in 1996, Charlie Bass voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to same-sex couples.

But in late 2012, just before leaving office after losing his bid for re-election, he changed his position, supporting a bill to repeal the law.

And now, as the U.S. Supreme Court weighs the constitutionality of DOMA, Bass says his party must work toward greater acceptance of same-sex marriage.

“I urge all Republicans not to be caught on the wrong side of history. I think Americans across party lines, across gender lines, across philosophical lines are realizing that it’s wrong to be against allowing a loving couple to be joined together for life.”

Bass took part in a conference call Monday with U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who also supports national marriage equality.

The Supreme Court is also weighing the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a voter-passed referendum in California banning same-sex marriage.

Des Moines, IA—On June 1, 2013, Iowa Republicans for Freedom (IRFF) celebrates its two-year anniversary. IRFF is the conservative organization that supports individual liberty for same-sex couples seeking civil marriage recognition from our government, and was founded in 2011 by former Iowa Senator Jeff Angelo.

Angelo served in the Iowa Senate for 12 years, where he was a lead sponsor on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Iowa. However, in January 2011 Angelo announced his change of position during a public hearing on the Iowa House floor for House Joint Resolution 6, a resolution to limit the freedom to marry that ultimately failed.

“In the past two years, Iowa Republicans for Freedom has continued to give a voice to conservatives who support the freedom to marry for same-sex couples,” Angelo said. “Attitudes are changing on a national level, and I have every confidence that we are winning. As our organization looks forward, we will continue to engage with more conservatives across the state about how they can get involved and what they can do to help spread the word.”
In late summer, Angelo plans to have a strategy meeting with IRFF advisory board members to discuss expanding the conversation to other parts of the state and to reach a broader constituency. Future efforts also include reaching out to college Republicans. In a March 2013 Washington Post/ABC National poll, 52 percent of Republicans under 50 said they supported civil marriage for same-sex couples.

In January 2013, IRFF held an event that brought together conservatives to talk about the freedom to marry in Des Moines. Former GOP strategist Ken Mehlman, who acted as the campaign manager for George W. Bush’s successful re-election campaign in 2004, headlined the event and spoke about why conservative support for same-sex marriage is important.

Other speakers included David Kochel, an advisor to 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. Since then, Kochel has been vocal about his active support for marriage equality.

“Iowa Republicans for Freedom looks forward to continuing our work with influential members within the GOP—both in Iowa and beyond—to continue to make the conservative case for marriage equality,” Angelo said. “Since founding the organization, IRFF has received enormous support from community members. We are proud to stand up for conservative values, and as conservatives we believe in smaller government that should simply stay out of the personal lives of its citizens—and this includes our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Support for the freedom to marry is growing, and we’re proud to stand on the right side of history.”